Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a suit by a fan whose 16-second backstage discussion with the comedienne Joan Rivers was included in the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 12-1923.
Ann Bogie had approached Rivers after a show at a Wisconsin casino to obtain Rivers' autograph on a book and to express support for Rivers over heckling from an audience member who was angered by a joke Rivers told about Helen Keller, who had been deaf.
On Bogie's invasion of privacy claim under Wis. Stat. '995.50(2)(a), the appeals court noted that she had spoken to Rivers “in the presence of several security personnel and a film crew. No reasonable person would expect privacy in that situation.” The appeals court added: “Courts have found that even performers themselves cannot count on a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own backstage areas.” Also, “the fact that Bogie was embarrassed to be filmed saying something she regrets having said and now deems offensive does not convert the filming itself into a highly offensive intrusion.”
The appeals court then considered Bogie's '995.50(2)(b) claim of misappropriation of her image without consent for “advertising purposes or for purposes of trade” by looking to New York precedents, because the Wisconsin statute is based on N.Y. Civil Rights Law '50. The appeals court concluded that “the documentary about Rivers is clearly subject to the newsworthiness exception for such claims. Additionally, we think it is clear as a matter of law that Bogie's image is merely incidental to the film, thereby barring her ' claim.”
[Editor's Note: Last month, the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of now-deceased Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. See the full story online, at www.ljnonline.com/alm?ent.]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a suit by a fan whose 16-second backstage discussion with the comedienne Joan Rivers was included in the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 12-1923.
Ann Bogie had approached Rivers after a show at a Wisconsin casino to obtain Rivers' autograph on a book and to express support for Rivers over heckling from an audience member who was angered by a joke Rivers told about Helen Keller, who had been deaf.
On Bogie's invasion of privacy claim under Wis. Stat. '995.50(2)(a), the appeals court noted that she had spoken to Rivers “in the presence of several security personnel and a film crew. No reasonable person would expect privacy in that situation.” The appeals court added: “Courts have found that even performers themselves cannot count on a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own backstage areas.” Also, “the fact that Bogie was embarrassed to be filmed saying something she regrets having said and now deems offensive does not convert the filming itself into a highly offensive intrusion.”
The appeals court then considered Bogie's '995.50(2)(b) claim of misappropriation of her image without consent for “advertising purposes or for purposes of trade” by looking to
[Editor's Note: Last month, the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of now-deceased Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. See the full story online, at www.ljnonline.com/alm?ent.]
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?